Cargando…
Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss
We compare the focal structure–function correlation of structural measurements of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFL‐T) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), capillary density (CD) measurements using OCT‐angiography (OCT‐A), or a combination of both, with visual field deviat...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35029314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14732 |
_version_ | 1784752240834117632 |
---|---|
author | Kallab, Martin Hommer, Nikolaus Schlatter, Andreas Chua, Jacqueline Tan, Bingyao Schmidl, Doreen Hirn, Cornelia Findl, Oliver Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Wong, Damon |
author_facet | Kallab, Martin Hommer, Nikolaus Schlatter, Andreas Chua, Jacqueline Tan, Bingyao Schmidl, Doreen Hirn, Cornelia Findl, Oliver Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Wong, Damon |
author_sort | Kallab, Martin |
collection | PubMed |
description | We compare the focal structure–function correlation of structural measurements of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFL‐T) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), capillary density (CD) measurements using OCT‐angiography (OCT‐A), or a combination of both, with visual field deviation (VFD) in early to advanced glaucoma. Primary open angle glaucoma patients (n = 46, mean ± SD age: 67 ± 10 years; VF mean deviation: −10.41 ± 6.76 dB) were included in this cross‐sectional study. We performed 30–2 standard automated perimetry OCT (3.5‐mm diameter ring scan) and 15°×15° OCT‐A (superficial vascular complex slab). Based on a nerve fiber trajectory model, each VF test spot was assigned to an OCT‐A wedge and an OCT ring‐sector. Two univariate linear models (M(v) and M(t) ) using either CD‐based vascular (M(v) ) or RNFL‐T–based thickness information (M(t) ) and one multivariate model using both (M(v:t) ) were compared in their associations with measured focal VFD, which were higher for the multivariate model M(v:t) (mean ± SD correlation coefficient: 0.710 ± 0.086) than for either nested model (0.627 ± 0.078 for M(v) and 0.578 ± 0.095 for M(t) ). Using a focal visual field approach, the combination of RNFL‐T and CD showed better structure–function correlations than thickness or vascular information only. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9305098 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93050982022-07-28 Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss Kallab, Martin Hommer, Nikolaus Schlatter, Andreas Chua, Jacqueline Tan, Bingyao Schmidl, Doreen Hirn, Cornelia Findl, Oliver Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Wong, Damon Ann N Y Acad Sci Original Articles We compare the focal structure–function correlation of structural measurements of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFL‐T) using optical coherence tomography (OCT), capillary density (CD) measurements using OCT‐angiography (OCT‐A), or a combination of both, with visual field deviation (VFD) in early to advanced glaucoma. Primary open angle glaucoma patients (n = 46, mean ± SD age: 67 ± 10 years; VF mean deviation: −10.41 ± 6.76 dB) were included in this cross‐sectional study. We performed 30–2 standard automated perimetry OCT (3.5‐mm diameter ring scan) and 15°×15° OCT‐A (superficial vascular complex slab). Based on a nerve fiber trajectory model, each VF test spot was assigned to an OCT‐A wedge and an OCT ring‐sector. Two univariate linear models (M(v) and M(t) ) using either CD‐based vascular (M(v) ) or RNFL‐T–based thickness information (M(t) ) and one multivariate model using both (M(v:t) ) were compared in their associations with measured focal VFD, which were higher for the multivariate model M(v:t) (mean ± SD correlation coefficient: 0.710 ± 0.086) than for either nested model (0.627 ± 0.078 for M(v) and 0.578 ± 0.095 for M(t) ). Using a focal visual field approach, the combination of RNFL‐T and CD showed better structure–function correlations than thickness or vascular information only. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-01-14 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9305098/ /pubmed/35029314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14732 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of New York Academy of Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kallab, Martin Hommer, Nikolaus Schlatter, Andreas Chua, Jacqueline Tan, Bingyao Schmidl, Doreen Hirn, Cornelia Findl, Oliver Schmetterer, Leopold Garhöfer, Gerhard Wong, Damon Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
title | Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
title_full | Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
title_fullStr | Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
title_full_unstemmed | Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
title_short | Combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
title_sort | combining vascular and nerve fiber layer thickness measurements to model glaucomatous focal visual field loss |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35029314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14732 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kallabmartin combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT hommernikolaus combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT schlatterandreas combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT chuajacqueline combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT tanbingyao combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT schmidldoreen combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT hirncornelia combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT findloliver combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT schmettererleopold combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT garhofergerhard combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss AT wongdamon combiningvascularandnervefiberlayerthicknessmeasurementstomodelglaucomatousfocalvisualfieldloss |